From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 00:45:34 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 11/16 v4] core/legal-info: also save patches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56DA1E1E.4060501@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Yann, I have a late remark, see below. On 03/02/2016 23:22, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Currently, the legal-info infra only saves the source archive of a > package. However, that's not enough as we may apply some patches on > packages sources. > > We do suggest users to also redistribute the Buildroot sources as part > of their compliance distribution, so the patches bundled in Buildroot > would indeed be included in the compliance distribution. > > However, that's still not enough, since we may download some patches, or > the user may use a global patch directory. Patches in there might not > end up in the compliance distribution, and there are risks of > non-conformity. > > So, always include patches alongside the source archive. > > To ensure reproducibility, we also generate a series file, so patches > can be re-applied in the correct order. > > We get the list of patches to include from the list of patches that were > applied by the package infrastructure (via the apply-patches support > script). So, we need to get packages properly extracted and patched > before we can save their legal-info, not just in the case they define > _LICENSE_FILES. > > Update the legal-info header accordingly. > > Note: this means that, when a package is not patched and defines no > LICENSE_FILES, we will extract and patch it for nothing. There is no > easy way to know whether we have to patch a package or not. We can only > either duplicate the logic to detect patches (bad) or rely on the infra > actually patching the package. Also, a vast majority of packages are > either patched, or define _LICENSE_FILES, so it is best and easiest to > always extract and patch them prior to legal-info. > > Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" > Cc: Luca Ceresoli > Tested-by: Luca Ceresoli > Reviewed-by: Luca Ceresoli > > --- > Changes v3 -> v4: > - typo (Luca) > > Changes v2 -> v3: > - also mention that patches have been saved (Luca) > > Changes v1 -> v2: > - don't recompute rawname-version needlessly (Luca) > --- > package/pkg-generic.mk | 13 ++++++++----- > support/legal-info/README.header | 9 +++++---- > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/package/pkg-generic.mk b/package/pkg-generic.mk > index 432a153..055dbdb 100644 > --- a/package/pkg-generic.mk > +++ b/package/pkg-generic.mk > @@ -776,12 +776,10 @@ $(2)_MANIFEST_LICENSE_FILES = $$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES) > endif > $(2)_MANIFEST_LICENSE_FILES ?= not saved > > -# If the package declares _LICENSE_FILES, we need to extract it, > -# for overriden, local or normal remote packages alike, whether > -# we want to redistribute it or not. > -ifneq ($$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES),) > +# We need to extract and patch a package to be able to retrieve its > +# license files (if any) and the list of patches applied to it (if > +# any). > $(1)-legal-info: $(1)-patch > -endif A few lines below we have a dependency on $(1)-source. Always depending on $(1)-patch makes it useless, so we also should do: ifeq ($$($(2)_REDISTRIBUTE),YES) ifneq ($$($(2)_SITE_METHOD),local) ifneq ($$($(2)_SITE_METHOD),override) # Packages that have a tarball need it downloaded beforehand -$(1)-legal-info: $(1)-source $$(REDIST_SOURCES_DIR_$$(call UPPERCASE,$(4))) +$(1)-legal-info: $$(REDIST_SOURCES_DIR_$$(call UPPERCASE,$(4))) endif endif But beware this might conflict with the patch I just sent to fix the ifeq()s on the same few lines ('legal-info: fix detection of "override" packages'). Simple to fix anyway. This does not invalidate your patch, it's just a piece of code that will become redundant with your changes. -- Luca